Krishn Kumar Lahoti, Judge
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dt.19.5.2010 passed by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Appeal No.4A/2010, by which the judgment and decree dt.9.12.2009 passed by the trial court - Civil Judge Class I Gwalior in Civil Suit No.76-A/08 was confirmed. Both the courts below have decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent u/s 12(1)(a) of the M.P.Accommodation Control Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. The appellant has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the courts below on the ground that the suit was filed under Sections 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(c) of the Act, but the trial court had not found proved ground of eviction u/s 12(1)(c) but granted decree u/s 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though there was initial default in compliance of Section 13 of the Act, but vide order dt. 17.11.2007, the delay was condoned and thereafter the appellant deposited the rent every month except the month of March 2009, which was deposited in the month of May 2009. In this regard appellant moved an application for extension of time and condonation of delay in depositing rent of March 2009, but it was rejected on 13.11.2009. The ground raised in the application for condonation of delay and extension of time period was that the appellant is a poor person. He was working on a Taal of Bhusa (husk) and was not in a position to deposit the rent. It will be pertinent to mention here that the rate of rent is Rs.40/- per month.
3. Stating the aforesaid, it was submitted by the appellant that delay in payment of the rent of the month of March 2009 may be condoned and the judgment and decree passed by the courts below may be set aside and the appellant herein may be given protection of Section 12(3) of the Act.
4. In this case it is not in dispute that after condonation of delay in depositing the initial rent and monthly rent on 17.11.2007, the appellant was under an obligation to comply with the provisions as contained in Section 13(2) of the Act, but as stated herein above, the appellant could not deposit the rent of March 2009 in time, however, it was deposited after two months, for which application was filed after five months on 9.10.2009 stating the aforesaid grounds. The rate of the rent is only Rs.40/-, which can not be said to be a big amount and the appellant herein ought to have deposited the rent in time. The apex court has considered this aspect in
5. In view of the aforesaid position of law, the courts below have not erred in decreeing the suit of the respondent. This appeal does not involve any substantial question of law for consideration and is accordingly dismissed.
At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is residing in the accommodation and he be allowed two years'' time to vacate the premises. The aforesaid prayer is opposed by the respondents.
6. Considering the over all facts and circumstances and to the fact that the suit was filed in 2005, in the interest of justice, appellant is allowed six months'' time to vacate the suit premises but on the following terms :
1. Appellant to file an undertaking before the trial court within a period of 30 days from today that the appellant shall vacate the suit premises on or before 31st July 2012 peacefully without creating any hindrance or third party interest in the accommodation.
2. On filing the aforesaid and on payment of damages monthly equal to the amount of rent and all the arrears of the rent, if already not deposited, the executing court shall permit the appellant herein to occupy the accommodation till 31st July 2012.
3. Failing to comply with the aforesaid conditions, the landlord/respondents No.1 and 2 shall be entitled to execute the decree forthwith.
7. Considering the facts of the case there shall be no order as to costs of this appeal.
